ACRL Framework.pdf

Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education This Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education booklet is available for download at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/files/issues/infolit/framework.pdf. Additional copies may be purchased from the Association of College and Resea...

Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education This Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education booklet is available for download at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/files/issues/infolit/framework.pdf. Additional copies may be purchased from the Association of College and Research Libraries. E-mail [email protected] for more information.  Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education Filed by the ACRL Board of Directors February 2, 2015 Adopted by the ACRL Board January 11, 2016 The Association of College and Research Libraries A division of the American Library Association Chicago, Illinois This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Contents Introduction.......................................................................... 7 The Frames..........................................................................11 These six frames are presented alphabetically and do not suggest a particular sequence in which they must be learned. Authority Is Constructed and Contextual................................. 12 Information Creation as a Process............................................... 14 Information Has Value..................................................................... 16 Research as Inquiry........................................................................... 18 Scholarship as Conversation......................................................... 20 Searching as Strategic Exploration............................................. 22 Appendix 1: Implementing the Framework......................24 Suggestions on How to Use the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.............................. 24 Introduction for Faculty and Administrators........................... 26 For Faculty: How to Use the Framework.................................... 27 For Administrators: How to Support the Framework................ 28 Appendix 2: Background of the Framework Development............................................29 Appendix 3: Sources for Further Reading........................32 Introduction This Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (Framework) grows out of a belief that information literacy as an educational reform movement will realize its potential only through a richer, more complex set of core ideas. During the fifteen years since the publication of the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,1 academic librarians and their partners in higher education associations have developed learning outcomes, tools, and resources that some institutions have deployed to infuse information literacy concepts and skills into their curricula. However, the rapidly changing higher education environment, along with the dynamic and often uncertain information ecosystem in which all of us work and live, require new attention to be focused on foundational ideas about that ecosystem. Students have a greater role and responsibility in creating new knowledge, in understanding the contours and the changing dynamics of the world of information, and in using information, data, and scholarship ethically. Teaching faculty have a greater responsibility in designing curricula and assignments that foster enhanced engagement with the core ideas about information and scholarship within their disciplines. Librarians have a greater responsibility in identifying core ideas within their own knowledge domain that can extend learning for students, in creating a new cohesive curriculum for information literacy, and in collaborating more extensively with faculty. The Framework offered here is called a framework intentionally because it is based on a cluster of interconnected core concepts, with flexible options for implementation, rather than on a set of standards or learning outcomes, or any prescriptive enumeration of skills. At the heart of this Framework are conceptual understandings that organize many other concepts and ideas about information, research, and scholarship into a coherent whole. These conceptual understandings are informed by the work of Wiggins and McTighe,2 which focuses on essential concepts and questions in developing curricula, and also by threshold concepts3 which are those ideas in any discipline that are passageways or portals to enlarged understanding or ways of thinking and practicing within that discipline. This Framework draws upon an ongoing Delphi Study that has identified several threshold concepts in information literacy,4 but the Framework has been molded using fresh ideas and emphases for the threshold concepts. Two added elements illustrate important learning goals related to those concepts: knowledge practices,5 which are Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 7 demonstrations of ways in which learners can increase their understanding of these information literacy concepts, and dispositions,6 which describe ways in which to address the affective, attitudinal, or valuing dimension of learning. The Framework is organized into six frames, each consisting of a concept central to information literacy, a set of knowledge practices, and a set of dispositions. The six concepts that anchor the frames are presented alphabetically: yy Authority Is Constructed and Contextual yy Information Creation as a Process yy Information Has Value yy Research as Inquiry yy Scholarship as Conversation yy Searching as Strategic Exploration Neither the knowledge practices nor the dispositions that support each concept are intended to prescribe what local institutions should do in using the Framework; each library and its partners on campus will need to deploy these frames to best fit their own situation, including designing learning outcomes. For the same reason, these lists should not be considered exhaustive. In addition, this Framework draws significantly upon the concept of metaliteracy,7 which offers a renewed vision of information literacy as an overarching set of abilities in which students are consumers and creators of information who can participate successfully in collaborative spaces.8 Metaliteracy demands behavioral, affective, cognitive, and metacognitive engagement with the information ecosystem. This Framework depends on these core ideas of metaliteracy, with special focus on metacognition,9 or critical self-reflection, as crucial to becoming more self-directed in that rapidly changing ecosystem. Because this Framework envisions information literacy as extending the arc of learning throughout students’ academic careers and as converging with other academic and social learning goals, an expanded definition of information literacy is offered here to emphasize dynamism, flexibility, individual growth, and community learning: Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning. The Framework opens the way for librarians, faculty, and other institutional partners to redesign instruction sessions, assignments, courses, and even curricula; to connect 8 Association of College and Research Libraries information literacy with student success initiatives; to collaborate on pedagogical research and involve students themselves in that research; and to create wider conversations about student learning, the scholarship of teaching and learning, and the assessment of learning on local campuses and beyond. Notes 1. Association of College & Research Libraries, Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Chicago, 2000). 2. Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2004). 3. Threshold concepts are core or foundational concepts that, once grasped by the learner, create new perspectives and ways of understanding a discipline or challenging knowledge domain. Such concepts produce transformation within the learner; without them, the learner does not acquire expertise in that field of knowledge. Threshold concepts can be thought of as portals through which the learner must pass in order to develop new perspectives and wider understanding. Jan H. F. Meyer, Ray Land, and Caroline Baillie. “Editors’ Preface.” In Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning, edited by Jan H. F. Meyer, Ray Land, and Caroline Baillie, ix–xlii. (Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2010). 4. For information on this unpublished, in-progress Delphi Study on threshold concepts and information literacy, conducted by Lori Townsend, Amy Hofer, Silvia Lu, and Korey Brunetti, see http://www.ilthresholdconcepts.com/. Lori Townsend, Korey Brunetti, and Amy R. Hofer. “Threshold Concepts and Information Literacy.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 11, no. 3 (2011): 853–69. 5. Knowledge practices are the proficiencies or abilities that learners develop as a result of their comprehending a threshold concept. 6. Generally, a disposition is a tendency to act or think in a particular way. More specifically, a disposition is a cluster of preferences, attitudes, and intentions, as well as a set of capabilities that allow the preferences to become realized in a particular way. Gavriel Salomon. “To Be or Not to Be (Mindful).” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meetings, New Orleans, LA, 1994. 7. Metaliteracy expands the scope of traditional information skills (determine, access, locate, understand, produce, and use information) to include the collaborative production and sharing of information in participatory digital environments (collaborate, produce, and share). This approach requires an ongoing adaptation to emerging technologies and an understanding of the critical thinking and reflection required to engage in these spaces as producers, collaborators, and distributors. Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson. Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners. (Chicago: Neal-Schuman, 2014). 8. Thomas P. Mackey and Trudi E. Jacobson. “Reframing Information Literacy as a Metaliteracy.” College and Research Libraries 72, no. 1 (2011): 62–78. 9. Metacognition is an awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes. It focuses on how people learn and process information, taking into consideration people’s awareness of how they learn. (Jennifer A. Livingston. “Metacognition: An Overview.” Online paper, State University of New York at Buffalo, Graduate School of Education, 1997. http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm.) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 9 The Frames Authority Is Constructed and Contextual Information resources reflect their creators’ expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required. Experts understand that authority is a type of influence recognized or exerted within a community. Experts view authority with an attitude of informed skepticism and an openness to new perspectives, additional voices, and changes in schools of thought. Experts understand the need to determine the validity of the information created by different authorities and to acknowledge biases that privilege some sources of authority over others, especially in terms of others’ worldviews, gender, sexual orientation, and cultural orientations. An understanding of this concept enables novice learners to critically examine all evidence—be it a short blog post or a peer-reviewed conference proceeding—and to ask relevant questions about origins, context, and suitability for the current information need. Thus, novice learners come to respect the expertise that authority represents while remaining skeptical of the systems that have elevated that authority and the information created by it. Experts know how to seek authoritative voices but also recognize that unlikely voices can be authoritative, depending on need. Novice learners may need to rely on basic indicators of authority, such as type of publication or author credentials, where experts recognize schools of thought or discipline-specific paradigms. Knowledge Practices Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy define different types of authority, such as subject expertise (e.g., scholarship), societal position (e.g., public office or title), or special experience (e.g., participating in a historic event); yy use research tools and indicators of authority to determine the credibility of sources, understanding the elements that might temper this credibility; yy understand that many disciplines have acknowledged authorities in the sense of well-known scholars and publications that are widely considered “standard,” and yet, even in those situations, some scholars would challenge the authority of those sources; 12 Association of College and Research Libraries  yy recognize that authoritative content may be packaged formally or informally and may include sources of all media types; yy acknowledge they are developing their own authoritative voices in a particular area and recognize the responsibilities this entails, including seeking accuracy and reliability, respecting intellectual property, and participating in communities of practice; yy understand the increasingly social nature of the information ecosystem where authorities actively connect with one another and sources develop over time. DISPOSITIONS Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy develop and maintain an open mind when encountering varied and sometimes conflicting perspectives; yy motivate themselves to find authoritative sources, recognizing that authority may be conferred or manifested in unexpected ways; yy develop awareness of the importance of assessing content with a skeptical stance and with a self-awareness of their own biases and worldview; yy question traditional notions of granting authority and recognize the value of diverse ideas and worldviews; yy are conscious that maintaining these attitudes and actions requires frequent self-evaluation. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 13 Information Creation as a Process Information in any format is produced to convey a message and is shared via a selected delivery method. The iterative processes of researching, creating, revising, and disseminating information vary, and the resulting product reflects these differences. The information creation process could result in a range of information formats and modes of delivery, so experts look beyond format when selecting resources to use. The unique capabilities and constraints of each creation process as well as the specific information need determine how the product is used. Experts recognize that information creations are valued differently in different contexts, such as academia or the workplace. Elements that affect or reflect on the creation, such as a pre- or post-publication editing or reviewing process, may be indicators of quality. The dynamic nature of information creation and dissemination requires ongoing attention to understand evolving creation processes. Recognizing the nature of information creation, experts look to the underlying processes of creation as well as the final product to critically evaluate the usefulness of the information. Novice learners begin to recognize the significance of the creation process, leading them to increasingly sophisticated choices when matching information products with their information needs. KNOWLEDGE PRACTICES Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy articulate the capabilities and constraints of information developed through various creation processes; yy assess the fit between an information product’s creation process and a particular information need; yy articulate the traditional and emerging processes of information creation and dissemination in a particular discipline; yy recognize that information may be perceived differently based on the format in which it is packaged; yy recognize the implications of information formats that contain static or dynamic information; yy monitor the value that is placed upon different types of information products in varying contexts; 14 Association of College and Research Libraries  yy transfer knowledge of capabilities and constraints to new types of information products; yy develop, in their own creation processes, an understanding that their choices impact the purposes for which the information product will be used and the message it conveys. DISPOSITIONS Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy are inclined to seek out characteristics of information products that indicate the underlying creation process; yy value the process of matching an information need with an appropriate product; yy accept that the creation of information may begin initially through communicating in a range of formats or modes; yy accept the ambiguity surrounding the potential value of information creation expressed in emerging formats or modes; yy resist the tendency to equate format with the underlying creation process; yy understand that different methods of information dissemination with different purposes are available for their use. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 15 Information Has Value Information possesses several dimensions of value, including as a commodity, as a means of education, as a means to influence, and as a means of negotiating and understanding the world. Legal and socioeconomic interests influence information production and dissemination. The value of information is manifested in various contexts, including publishing practices, access to information, the commodification of personal information, and intellectual property laws. The novice learner may struggle to understand the diverse values of information in an environment where “free” information and related services are plentiful and the concept of intellectual property is first encountered through rules of citation or warnings about plagiarism and copyright law. As creators and users of information, experts understand their rights and responsibilities when participating in a community of scholarship. Experts understand that value may be wielded by powerful interests in ways that marginalize certain voices. However, value may also be leveraged by individuals and organizations to effect change and for civic, economic, social, or personal gains. Experts also understand that the individual is responsible for making deliberate and informed choices about when to comply with and when to contest current legal and socioeconomic practices concerning the value of information. KNOWLEDGE PRACTICES Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy give credit to the original ideas of others through proper attribution and citation; yy understand that intellectual property is a legal and social construct that varies by culture; yy articulate the purpose and distinguishing characteristics of copyright, fair use, open access, and the public domain; yy understand how and why some individuals or groups of individuals may be underrepresented or systematically marginalized within the systems that produce and disseminate information; yy recognize issues of access or lack of access to information sources; yy decide where and how their information is published; 16 Association of College and Research Libraries  yy understand how the commodification of their personal information and online interactions affects the information they receive and the information they produce or disseminate online; yy make informed choices regarding their online actions in full awareness of issues related to privacy and the commodification of personal information. DISPOSITIONS Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy respect the original ideas of others; yy value the skills, time, and effort needed to produce knowledge; yy see themselves as contributors to the information marketplace rather than only consumers of it; yy are inclined to examine their own information privilege. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 17 Research as Inquiry Research is iterative and depends upon asking increasingly complex or new questions whose answers in turn develop additional questions or lines of inquiry in any field. Experts see inquiry as a process that focuses on problems or questions in a discipline or between disciplines that are open or unresolved. Experts recognize the collaborative effort within a discipline to extend the knowledge in that field. Many times, this process includes points of disagreement where debate and dialogue work to deepen the conversations around knowledge. This process of inquiry extends beyond the academic world to the community at large, and the process of inquiry may focus upon personal, professional, or societal needs. The spectrum of inquiry ranges from asking simple questions that depend upon basic recapitulation of knowledge to increasingly sophisticated abilities to refine research questions, use more advanced research methods, and explore more diverse disciplinary perspectives. Novice learners acquire strategic perspectives on inquiry and a greater repertoire of investigative methods. KNOWLEDGE PRACTICES Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy Formulate questions for research based on information gaps or on reexamination of existing, possibly conflicting, information; yy determine an appropriate scope of investigation; yy deal with complex research by breaking complex questions into simple ones, limiting the scope of investigations; yy use various research methods, based on need, circumstance, and type of inquiry; yy monitor gathered information and assess for gaps or weaknesses; yy organize information in meaningful ways; yy synthesize ideas gathered from multiple sources; yy draw reasonable conclusions based on the analysis and interpretation of information. 18 Association of College and Research Libraries DISPOSITIONS Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy consider research as open-ended exploration and engagement with information; yy appreciate that a question may appear to be simple but still disruptive and important to research; yy value intellectual curiosity in developing questions and learning new investigative methods; yy maintain an open mind and a critical stance; yy value persistence, adaptability, and flexibility and recognize that ambiguity can benefit the research process; yy seek multiple perspectives during information gathering and assessment; yy seek appropriate help when needed; yy follow ethical and legal guidelines in gathering and using information; yy demonstrate intellectual humility (i.e., recognize their own intellectual or experiential limitations). Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 19 Scholarship as Conversation Communities of scholars, researchers, or professionals engage in sustained discourse with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result of varied perspectives and interpretations. Research in scholarly and professional fields is a discursive practice in which ideas are formulated, debated, and weighed against one another over extended periods of time. Instead of seeking discrete answers to complex problems, experts understand that a given issue may be characterized by several competing perspectives as part of an ongoing conversation in which information users and creators come together and negotiate meaning. Experts understand that, while some topics have established answers through this process, a query may not have a single uncontested answer. Experts are therefore inclined to seek out many perspectives, not merely the ones with which they are familiar. These perspectives might be in their own discipline or profession or may be in other fields. While novice learners and experts at all levels can take part in the conversation, established power and authority structures may influence their ability to participate and can privilege certain voices and information. Developing familiarity with the sources of evidence, methods, and modes of discourse in the field assists novice learners to enter the conversation. New forms of scholarly and research conversations provide more avenues in which a wide variety of individuals may have a voice in the conversation. Providing attribution to relevant previous research is also an obligation of participation in the conversation. It enables the conversation to move forward and strengthens one’s voice in the conversation. KNOWLEDGE PRACTICES Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy cite the contributing work of others in their own information production; yy contribute to scholarly conversation at an appropriate level, such as local online community, guided discussion, undergraduate research journal, conference presentation/poster session; yy identify barriers to entering scholarly conversation via various venues; yy critically evaluate contributions made by others in participatory information environments; yy identify the contribution that particular articles, books, and other scholarly pieces make to disciplinary knowledge; 20 Association of College and Research Libraries  yy summarize the changes in scholarly perspective over time on a particular topic within a specific discipline; yy recognize that a given scholarly work may not represent the only or even the majority perspective on the issue. DISPOSITIONS Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy recognize they are often entering into an ongoing scholarly conversation and not a finished conversation; yy seek out conversations taking place in their research area; yy see themselves as contributors to scholarship rather than only consumers of it; yy recognize that scholarly conversations take place in various venues; yy suspend judgment on the value of a particular piece of scholarship until the larger context for the scholarly conversation is better understood; yy understand the responsibility that comes with entering the conversation through participatory channels; yy value user-generated content and evaluate contributions made by others; yy recognize that systems privilege authorities and that not having a fluency in the language and process of a discipline disempowers their ability to participate and engage. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 21 Searching as Strategic Exploration Searching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the evaluation of a range of information sources and the mental flexibility to pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops. The act of searching often begins with a question that directs the act of finding needed information. Encompassing inquiry, discovery, and serendipity, searching identifies both possible relevant sources as well as the means to access those sources. Experts realize that information searching is a contextualized, complex experience that affects, and is affected by, the cognitive, affective, and social dimensions of the searcher. Novice learners may search a limited set of resources, while experts may search more broadly and deeply to determine the most appropriate information within the project scope. Likewise, novice learners tend to use few search strategies, while experts select from various search strategies, depending on the sources, scope, and context of the information need. KNOWLEDGE PRACTICES Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy determine the initial scope of the task required to meet their information needs; yy identify interested parties, such as scholars, organizations, governments, and industries, who might produce information about a topic and then determine how to access that information; yy utilize divergent (e.g., brainstorming) and convergent (e.g., selecting the best source) thinking when searching; yy match information needs and search strategies to appropriate search tools; yy design and refine needs and search strategies as necessary, based on search results; yy understand how information systems (i.e., collections of recorded information) are organized in order to access relevant information; yy use different types of searching language (e.g., controlled vocabulary, keywords, natural language) appropriately; yy manage searching processes and results effectively. 22 Association of College and Research Libraries DISPOSITIONS Learners who are developing their information literate abilities yy exhibit mental flexibility and creativity; yy understand that first attempts at searching do not always produce adequate results; yy realize that information sources vary greatly in content and format and have varying relevance and value, depending on the needs and nature of the search; yy seek guidance from experts, such as librarians, researchers, and professionals; yy recognize the value of browsing and other serendipitous methods of information gathering; yy persist in the face of search challenges, and know when they have enough information to complete the information task. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 23 Appendix 1: Implementing the Framework Suggestions on How to Use the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education The Framework is a mechanism for guiding the development of information literacy programs within higher education institutions while also promoting discussion about the nature of key concepts in information in general education and disciplinary studies. The Framework encourages thinking about how librarians, faculty, and others can address core or portal concepts and associated elements in the information field within the context of higher education. The Framework will help librarians contextualize and integrate information literacy for their institutions and will encourage a deeper understanding of what knowledge practices and dispositions an information literate student should develop. The Framework redefines the boundaries of what librarians teach and how they conceptualize the study of information within the curricula of higher education institutions. The Framework has been conceived as a set of living documents on which the profession will build. The key product is a set of frames, or lenses, through which to view information literacy, each of which includes a concept central to information literacy, knowledge practices, and dispositions. The Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) encourages the library community to discuss the new Framework widely and to develop resources such as curriculum guides, concept maps, and assessment instruments to supplement the core set of materials in the frames. As a first step, ACRL encourages librarians to read through the entire Framework and discuss the implications of this new approach for the information literacy program at their institution. Possibilities include convening a discussion among librarians at an institution or joining an online discussion of librarians. In addition, as one becomes familiar with the frames, consider discussing them with professionals in the institution’s center for teaching and learning, office of undergraduate education, or similar departments to see whether some synergies exist between this approach and other institutional curricular initiatives. The frames can guide the redesign of information literacy programs for general education courses, for upper level courses in students’ major departments, and for 24 Association of College and Research Libraries graduate student education. The frames are intended to demonstrate the contrast in thinking between novice learner and expert in a specific area; movement may take place over the course of a student’s academic career. Mapping out in what way specific concepts will be integrated into specific curriculum levels is one of the challenges of implementing the Framework. ACRL encourages librarians to work with faculty, departmental or college curriculum committees, instructional designers, staff from centers for teaching and learning, and others to design information literacy programs in a holistic way. ACRL realizes that many information literacy librarians currently meet with students via one-shot classes, especially in introductory level classes. Over the course of a student’s academic program, one-shot sessions that address a particular need at a particular time, systematically integrated into the curriculum, can play a significant role in an information literacy program. It is important for librarians and teaching faculty to understand that the Framework is not designed to be implemented in a single information literacy session in a student’s academic career; it is intended to be developmentally and systematically integrated into the student’s academic program at a variety of levels. This may take considerable time to implement fully in many institutions. ACRL encourages information literacy librarians to be imaginative and innovative in implementing the Framework in their institution. The Framework is not intended to be prescriptive but to be used as a guidance document in shaping an institutional program. ACRL recommends piloting the implementation of the Framework in a context that is useful to a specific institution, assessing the results and sharing experiences with colleagues. HOW TO USE THIS FRAMEWORK yy Read and reflect on the entire Framework document. yy Convene or join a group of librarians to discuss the implications of this approach to information literacy for your institution. yy Reach out to potential partners in your institution, such as departmental curriculum committees, centers for teaching and learning, or offices of undergraduate or graduate studies, to discuss how to implement the Framework in your institutional context. yy Using the Framework, pilot the development of information literacy sessions within a particular academic program in your institution, and assess and share the results with your colleagues. yy Share instructional materials with other information literacy librarians in the online repository developed by ACRL. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 25 Introduction for Faculty and Administrators CONSIDERING INFORMATION LITERACY Information literacy is the set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning. This Framework sets forth these information literacy concepts and describes how librarians as information professionals can facilitate the development of information literacy by postsecondary students. CREATING A FRAMEWORK ACRL has played a leading role in promoting information literacy in higher education for decades. The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Standards), first published in 2000, enabled colleges and universities to position information literacy as an essential learning outcome in the curriculum and promoted linkages with general education programs, service learning, problem-based learning, and other pedagogies focused on deeper learning. Regional accrediting bodies, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), and various discipline- specific organizations employed and adapted the Standards. It is time for a fresh look at information literacy, especially in light of changes in higher education, coupled with increasingly complex information ecosystems. To that end, an ACRL Task Force developed the Framework. The Framework seeks to address the great potential for information literacy as a deeper, more integrated learning agenda, addressing academic and technical courses, undergraduate research, community- based learning, and co-curricular learning experiences of entering freshman through graduation. The Framework focuses attention on the vital role of collaboration and its potential for increasing student understanding of the processes of knowledge creation and scholarship. The Framework also emphasizes student participation and creativity, highlighting the importance of these contributions. The Framework is developed around a set of “frames,” which are those critical gateway or portal concepts through which students must pass to develop genuine expertise within a discipline, profession, or knowledge domain. Each frame includes a knowledge practices section used to demonstrate how the mastery of the concept leads to application in new situations and knowledge generation. Each frame also includes a set of dispositions that address the affective areas of learning. 26 Association of College and Research Libraries For Faculty: How to Use the Framework A vital benefit in using threshold concepts as one of the underpinnings for the Framework is the potential for collaboration among disciplinary faculty, librarians, teaching and learning center staff, and others. Creating a community of conversations about this enlarged understanding should engender more collaboration, more innovative course designs, and a more inclusive consideration of learning within and beyond the classroom. Threshold concepts originated as faculty pedagogical research within disciplines. Because information literacy is both a disciplinary and a transdisciplinary learning agenda, using a conceptual framework for information literacy program planning, librarian-faculty collaboration, and student co-curricular projects can offer great potential for curricular enrichment and transformation. As a faculty member, you can take the following approaches: yy Investigate threshold concepts in your discipline and gain an understanding of the approach used in the Framework as it applies to the discipline you know. —— What are the specialized information skills in your discipline that students should develop, such as using primary sources (history) or accessing and managing large data sets (science)? yy Look for workshops at your campus teaching and learning center on the flipped classroom and consider how such practices could be incorporated into your courses. —— What information and research assignments can students do outside of class to arrive prepared to apply concepts and conduct collaborative projects? yy Partner with your IT department and librarians to develop new kinds of multimedia assignments for courses. —— What kinds of workshops and other services should be available for students involved in multimedia design and production? yy Help students view themselves as information producers, individually and collaboratively. —— In your program, how do students interact with, evaluate, produce, and share information in various formats and modes? yy Consider the knowledge practices and dispositions in each information literacy frame for possible integration into your own courses and academic program. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 27  —— How might you and a librarian design learning experiences and assignments that will encourage students to assess their own attitudes, strengths/weaknesses, and knowledge gaps related to information? For Administrators: How to Support the Framework Through reading the Framework document and discussing it with your institutions’ librarians, you can begin to focus on the best mechanisms to implement the Framework in your institution. As an administrator, you can take the following approaches: yy Host or encourage a series of campus conversations about how the institution can incorporate the Framework into student learning outcomes and supporting curriculum yy Provide the resources to enhance faculty expertise and opportunities for understanding and incorporating the Framework into the curriculum yy Encourage committees working on planning documents related to teaching and learning (at the department, program, and institutional levels) to include concepts from the Framework in their work yy Provide resources to support a meaningful assessment of information literacy of students at various levels at your institution yy Promote partnerships between faculty, librarians, instructional designers, and others to develop meaningful ways for students to become content creators, especially in their disciplines 28 Association of College and Research Libraries Appendix 2: Background of the Framework Development The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education were published in 2000 and brought information literacy into higher education conversations and advanced our field. These, like all ACRL standards, are reviewed cyclically. In July 2011, ACRL appointed a Task Force to decide what, if anything, to do with the current Standards. In June 2012, that Task Force recommended that the current Standards be significantly revised. This previous review Task Force made recommendations that informed the current revision Task Force, formed in 2013, with the following charge: to update the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education so they reflect the current thinking on such things as the creation and dissemination of knowledge, the changing global higher education and learning environment, the shift from information literacy to information fluency, and the expanding definition of information literacy to include multiple literacies, for example, transliteracy, media literacy, digital literacy, etc. The Task Force released the first version of the Framework in two parts in February and April of 2014 and received comments via two online hearings and a feedback form available online for four weeks. The committee then revised the document, released the second draft on June 17, 2014, and sought extensive feedback through a feedback form, two online hearings, an in-person hearing, and analysis of social media and topical blog posts. On a regular basis, the Task Force used all of ACRL’s and American Library Association’s (ALA) communication channels to reach individual members and ALA and ACRL units (committees, sections, round tables, ethnic caucuses, chapters, and divisions) with updates. The Task Force’s liaison at ACRL maintained a private e-mail distribution list of over 1,300 individuals who attended a fall, spring, or summer online forum; provided comments to the February, April, June, or November drafts; or were otherwise identified as having strong interest and expertise. This included Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 29 members of the Task Force that drafted the Standards, leading Library Information Science (LIS) researchers and national project directors, members of the Information Literacy Rubric Development Team for the Association of American Colleges & Universities, and Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education initiative. Via all these channels, the Task Force regularly shared updates, invited discussion at virtual and in-person forums and hearings, and encouraged comments on public drafts of the proposed Framework. ACRL recognized early on that the effect of any changes to the Standards would be significant both within the library profession and in higher education more broadly. In addition to general announcements, the Task Force contacted nearly 60 researchers who cited the Standards in publications outside LIS literature, more than 70 deans, associate deans, directors or chairs of LIS schools, and invited specific staff leaders (and press or communications contacts) at more than 70 other higher education associations, accrediting agencies, and library associations and consortia to encourage their members to read and comment on the draft. The Task Force systematically reviewed feedback from the first and second drafts of the Framework, including comments, criticism, and praise provided through formal and informal channels. The three official online feedback forms had 562 responses; numerous direct e-mails were sent to members of the Task Force. The group was proactive in tracking feedback on social media, namely blog posts and Twitter. While the data harvested from social media are not exhaustive, the Task Force made its best efforts to include all known Twitter conversations, blog posts, and blog commentary. In total, there were several hundred feedback documents, totaling over a thousand pages, under review. The content of these documents was analyzed by members of the Task Force and coded using HyperResearch, a qualitative data analysis software. During the drafting and vetting process, the Task Force provided more detail on the feedback analysis in an online FAQ document. The Task Force continued to revise the document and published the third revision in November 2014, again announcing broadly and seeking comments via a feedback form. As of November 2014, the Task Force members included the following: yy Craig Gibson, Professor, Ohio State University Libraries (Co-chair) yy Trudi E. Jacobson, Distinguished Librarian and Head, Information Literacy Department, University at Albany, SUNY, University Libraries (Co-chair) 30 Association of College and Research Libraries  yy Elizabeth Berman, Science and Engineering Librarian, University of Vermont (Member) yy Carl O. DiNardo, Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Library Instruction/Science Librarian, Eckerd College (Member) yy Lesley S. J. Farmer, Professor, California State University–Long Beach (Member) yy Ellie A. Fogarty, Vice President, Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Member) yy Diane M. Fulkerson, Social Sciences and Education Librarian, University of South Florida in Lakeland (Member) yy Merinda Kaye Hensley, Instructional Services Librarian and Scholarly Commons Co-coordinator, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Member) yy Joan K. Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information (Member) yy Michelle S. Millet, Library Director, John Carroll University (Member) yy Troy Swanson, Teaching and Learning Librarian, Moraine Valley Community College (Member) yy Lori Townsend, Data Librarian for Social Sciences and Humanities, University of New Mexico (Member) yy Julie Ann Garrison, Associate Dean of Research and Instructional Services, Grand Valley State University (Board Liaison) yy Kate Ganski, Library Instruction Coordinator, University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee (Visiting Program Officer, from September 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014) yy Kara Malenfant, Senior Strategist for Special Initiatives, Association of College and Research Libraries (Staff Liaison) In December 2014, the Task Force made final changes. Two other ACRL groups reviewed and provided feedback on the final drafts: the ACRL Information Literacy Standards Committee and the ACRL Standards Committee. The latter group submitted the final document and recommendations to the ACRL Board for its review at the 2015 ALA Midwinter Meeting in Chicago. Note: Filed by the ACRL Board February 2, 2015; Adopted by the ACRL Board January 11, 2016. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 31 Appendix 3: Sources for Further Reading The following sources are suggested readings for those who want to learn more about the ideas underpinning the Framework, especially the use of threshold concepts and related pedagogical models. Some readings here also explore other models for information literacy, discuss students’ challenges with information literacy, or offer examples of assessment of threshold concepts. Landmark works on threshold concept theory and research on this list are the edited volumes by Meyer, Land, and Baillie (Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning) and by Meyer and Land (Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practicing within the Disciplines). In addition, numerous research articles, conference papers, reports, and presentations on threshold concepts are cited on the regularly updated website Threshold Concepts: Undergraduate Teaching, Postgraduate Training, and Professional Development; A Short Introduction and Bibliography, available at http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html. ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force. “Task Force Recommendations.” ACRL AC12 Doc 13.1, June 2, 2012. http://www.ala.org/ acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/standards/ils_recomm.pdf. American Association for School Librarians. Standards for the 21st-Century Learner. Chicago: American Library Association, 2007. http://www.ala.org/ aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/ AASL_LearningStandards.pdf. Blackmore, Margaret. “Student Engagement with Information: Applying a Threshold Concept Approach to Information Literacy Development.” Paper presented at the 3rd Biennial Threshold Concepts Symposium: Exploring Transformative Dimensions of Threshold Concepts, Sydney, Australia, July 1–2, 2010. Carmichael, Patrick. “Tribes, Territories, and Threshold Concepts: Educational Materialisms at Work in Higher Education.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 44, no. S1 (2012): 31–42. Coonan, Emma. A New Curriculum for Information Literacy: Teaching Learning; Perceptions of Information Literacy. Arcadia Project, Cambridge University Library, July 2011. http://ccfil.pbworks.com/f/emma_report_final.pdf. Cousin, Glynis. “An Introduction to Threshold Concepts.” Planet 17 (December 2006): 4–5. 32 Association of College and Research Libraries ———. “Threshold Concepts, Troublesome Knowledge and Emotional Capital: An Exploration into Learning about Others.” In Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, edited by Jan H. F. Meyer and Ray Land, 134–47. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. Gibson, Craig, and Trudi Jacobson. “Informing and Extending the Draft ACRL Information Literacy Framework for Higher Education: An Overview and Avenues for Research.” College and Research Libraries 75, no. 3 (May 2014): 250–4. Head, Alison J. “Project Information Literacy: What Can Be Learned about the Information-Seeking Behavior of Today’s College Students?” Paper presented at the ACRL National Conference, Indianapolis, IN, April 10–13, 2013. Hofer, Amy R., Lori Townsend, and Korey Brunetti. “Troublesome Concepts and Information Literacy: Investigating Threshold Concepts for IL Instruction.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 12, no. 4 (2012): 387–405. Jacobson, Trudi E., and Thomas P. Mackey. “Proposing a Metaliteracy Model to Redefine Information Literacy.” Communications in Information Literacy 7, no. 2 (2013): 84–91. Kuhlthau, Carol C. “Rethinking the 2000 ACRL Standards: Some Things to Consider.” Communications in Information Literacy 7, no. 3 (2013): 92–7. ———. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2004. Limberg, Louise, Mikael Alexandersson, Annika Lantz-Andersson, and Lena Folkesson. “What Matters? Shaping Meaningful Learning through Teaching Information Literacy.” Libri 58, no. 2 (2008): 82–91. Lloyd, Annemaree. Information Literacy Landscapes: Information Literacy in Education, Workplace and Everyday Contexts. Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 2010. Lupton, Mandy Jean. The Learning Connection: Information Literacy and the Student Experience. Blackwood: South Australia: Auslib Press, 2004. Mackey, Thomas P., and Trudi E. Jacobson. Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners. Chicago: Neal-Schuman, 2014. Martin, Justine. “Refreshing Information Literacy.” Communications in Information Literacy 7, no. 2 (2013): 114–27. Meyer, Jan, and Ray Land. Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practicing within the Disciplines. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh, 2003. Meyer, Jan H. F., Ray Land, and Caroline Baillie. “Editors’ Preface.” In Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning, edited by Jan H. F. Meyer, Ray Land, and Caroline Baillie, ix–xlii. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2010. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education 33 Middendorf, Joan, and David Pace. “Decoding the Disciplines: A Model for Helping Students Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 98 (2004): 1–12. Oakleaf, Megan. “A Roadmap for Assessing Student Learning Using the New Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.” Journal of Academic Librarianship 40, no. 5 (September 2014): 510–4. Secker, Jane. A New Curriculum for Information Literacy: Expert Consultation Report. Arcadia Project, Cambridge University Library, July 2011. http://ccfil.pbworks. com/f/Expert_report_final.pdf. Townsend, Lori, Korey Brunetti, and Amy R. Hofer. “Threshold Concepts and Information Literacy.” portal: Libraries and the Academy 11, no. 3 (2011): 853–69. Tucker, Virginia, Christine Bruce, Sylvia Edwards, and Judith Weedman. “Learning Portals: Analyzing Threshold Concept Theory for LIS Education.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 55, no. 2 (2014): 150–65. Wiggins, Grant, and Jay McTighe. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2004. 34 Association of College and Research Libraries Citing the Framework American Psychological Association (APA Style) Framework for information literacy for higher education. (2015). Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. Online citation Framework for information literacy for higher education. (2015) Retrieved [insert month-day-year accessed] from http://www.ala.org/acrl/files/issues/ infolit/framework.pdf Chicago Manual of Style Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 2015. Online citation Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Association of College & Research Libraries, 2015; http://www.ala.org/acrl/files/issues/ infolit/framework.pdf (accessed month-day-year). Modern Language Association (MLA Style) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries, 2015. Online citation “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.” 2015. Association of College & Research Libraries. [Day-month-year accessed] < http://www. ala.org/acrl/files/issues/infolit/framework.pdf > 50 East Huron Street| Chicago, IL 60611 T. (800) 545-2433, ext. 2523 [email protected]